SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1778

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Ravi Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 15094 of 2022 & CM. Appl. 46671 of 2022
Decided On : 01-11-2022

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate., for the Petitioner; Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel & Mr. Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Government Pleader., for the Respondents

The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless arbitrariness is shown, the court should refrain from interfering in transfer and posting orders, especially in the case of armed forces.

Headnote:

Transfer - Border Security Force - Rule 19 of Border Security Force (Tenure of posting and Deputation) Rules, 2002 - [Rule 19, Border Security Force (Tenure of posting and Deputation) Rules, 2002] - The court discussed the application of Rule 19, which provides for the extension or reduction of the tenure of a member of the force in the interest of the force or in cases of hardship by the Director General. The court found that unless arbitrariness is shown, it should refrain from interfering in transfer and posting orders, especially in the case of armed forces.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of transfer orders and movement orders passed by the respondents, citing Rule 5 of Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000, which prescribed a four-year tenure for members of the force belonging to the ministerial cadre. The petitioner had been transferred from FHQ, New Delhi to Meghalaya Frontier, and had filed a representation seeking continuation of his posting in Delhi due to personal reasons.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents' decision to transfer the petitioner was in accordance with Rule 19 of Border Security Force (Tenure of posting and Deputation) Rules, 2002, which allows for the extension or reduction of tenure in the interest of the force or in cases of hardship by the Director General. The court noted that the petitioner's admission of a mistake and unsatisfactory reply to a Show Cause Notice led to a warning and subsequent transfer. The court emphasized that unless arbitrariness is shown, it should refrain from interfering in transfer and posting orders, especially in the case of armed forces.

Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's request for quashing of transfer and movement orders, citing Rule 5 of Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000, and the respondents' decision to transfer the petitioner in accordance with Rule 19 of Border Security Force (Tenure of posting and Deputation) Rules, 2002.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of Rule 19 of Border Security Force (Tenure of posting and Deputation) Rules, 2002, which allows for the extension or reduction of tenure in the interest of the force or in cases of hardship by the Director General. The court emphasized that unless arbitrariness is shown, it should refrain from interfering in transfer and posting orders, especially in the case of armed forces.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims and disposed of the pending application as infructuous.

JUDGMENT

1. Pertinently, this is second round of litigation by the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner in the first round of litigation being W.P.(C) No. 14736/22 had sought quashing of the signals dated 15.09.2022 and 21.09.2022 and movement order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the respondents. In the first round of litigation and this Court vide decision dated 18.10.2022 had directed the competent authority of respondents to decide petitioner's representation dated 21.09.2022 within two weeks.

2. Aggrieved against the decision dated 25.10.2022 passed by the respondents apropos thereto, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the said order dated 25.10.2022; signals dated 15.09.2022 and 21.09.2022 and movement order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the respondents. In addition, direction is also sought to respondents to either permit petitioner to complete his four years tenure at OPS Directorate, FHQ, New Delhi or to post him to any other Directorate/Establishment in Delhi to enable him to complete remainder of his three years' tenure.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that Rule 5 of Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000 prescribed that the tenure of members of the Force belonging to the ministerial cadre shall be four years and petitioner was posted at FHQ, New Delhi only in September, 2021. Also submitted that petitioner has remained posted at Meghalaya Frontier for nearly 7 years out of his service tenure of 15 years and respondents have arbitrarily rejected petitioner's request to continue posting at FHQ, New Delhi. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been transferred from OPS Directorate, FHQ, New Delhi without affording an opportunity of hearing and that the information inadvertently disclosed by the petitioner was very much available in the public domain. Learned counsel next submitted that against the Show Cause Notice, petitioner has already been issued a warning and for the same action of petitioner, he cannot be given two punishments.

4. It has been also submitted that impugned transfer order posting him from FHQ, New Delhi to Meghalya Ftr would lead to uprooting his entire family and he will not be able to render any kind of assistance to his wife and old aged parents.

5. The factual background of the present petition is that the petitioner, who is working as Sub-Inspr (Min) and posted with Ops Dte, FHQ BSF, has remained posted and served in North East Regions for more than eight years i.e. 15.10.2009 till 29.06.2018. Vide Signal No. R/3129 dated 22.06.2021, he was directed to join his present place of posting at FHQ, New Delhi, which he had joined on 18.09.2021. However, pursuant to a Court of Inquiry, a Show Cause Notice dated 08.09.2022 was issued to him, to which he filed a reply dated 12.09.2022 regretting his mistakes with an undertaking not to repeat the same. Thereafter, vide Pers Dte (Staff Section) FHQ Signal No. R/3127 dated 19.09.022, he was transferred to Meghalya Ftr. Vide letter bearing No. No.1112/COI/Adm/ Ops/2022/21053-54 dated 20.09.2022, the competent authority informed the petitioner that the reply furnished by him to the above said Show Cause Notice was not satisfactory and for his egregious negligence, he was issued a warning to be careful in future. The petitioner preferred a representation dated 21.09.2022 to the respondent with the following prayers:-

    '5. Sir, I have been posted to. Meghalaya Frontier for further adjustment vide Pers Dte (Staff Section) FHQ BSF Signal No. R-3127 dated 19 Sept' 2022 which is demotivating and definitely not good for my career since I have completed only one year period at FHQ BSF. I have also very shocked and mentally & physically stressed to listen my posting/transfer to Meghalaya Frontier whenever I was earlier posted/served in Meghalaya Frontier from 15/10/2009 to O 1/ 08/ 2016 which is so far flung area from my native place and I

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top